I hope that R* doesn't pull a San Andreas

Ex Hellraiser

My main issue is that I believe I read somewhere that there is no main antagonist. Rockstar said something along the lines of "no boss battles." Now, of course GTA isn't a game that has boss battles, so that only leads me to believe there is no "boss" i.e. antagonist. Is the entire story focused on the heists? Is there going to be any character development? There was a lot of development in IV. The characters were different at the end than the beginning (and I am not just talking money-wise.) Roman was either dead or married, Kate was either dead or angry with Niko, there were a lot of changes to characters and their situations throughout the story. Niko has a completely different outlook on America at the end, and different views on who his foes and allies are. From what we've seen, it seems the only thing that will change about the characters by the end of the V story is their bank accounts.

I know we've only been shown a little bit. Rockstar has told us that even with everything they've showed us, that they still managed to tell almost nothing about the game and it's story. I hope this is true, and that there is some real form of plot, because the little bit we've seen hasn't convinced me yet.

Ferocious Banger

The thing is, you're complaining about how SA had random sub-stories, and then you say IV had them too but they made sense, and then you list how they're connected. You're problem is you didn't take the time to remember & write down how SA's sub-stories connect as well. There are reasons why Carl does what he does in SA. And you keep saying he should have spent more time 'finding' his brother? He knew where his brother was, he didn't have to find him. He was in jail. The game was about getting him out of jail. But the whole time you had Tenpenny breathing down your neck.I'm not saying the game doesn't have flaws, but I don't believe the story was bad at all.

AllenKS

My main issue is that I believe I read somewhere that there is no main antagonist. Rockstar said something along the lines of "no boss battles." Now, of course GTA isn't a game that has boss battles, so that only leads me to believe there is no "boss" i.e. antagonist. Is the entire story focused on the heists?

I mean, if you think about it. GTA IV's entire plot was about finding 2 people. That didn't mean much and there were plenty of "boss battle" type of situations (Vlad, Mikhail, The warehouse where Dmitri turns on you, The Warehouse where they have Roman, The final chase sequence/Boat fight, etc.), and almost 80% of the story missions had nothing to do with that.

Even if the entire story is focused on heists, I'm sure there's going to be a lot of story in the middle that have not to much to do with that, and plenty of boss battles to go with them.

Finn 7 five 11

The problem with San Andreas was that he was trying to get his brother back, that was the whole point for the 60 odd missions following CJ leaving Los Santos, pretty silly at times, although not altogether different from IV.V seemS to revolvE around thrill seekers who wanna make money, which makes much more sense for an overall plot line.

Johan

I really agree with you on this one man, sure San Andreas was a memorable game but the story was extremely just thrown at you for no reason

IV has the best story to date in any video game in my opinion.. well in the series since we know Red Dead was pretty top notch. I'm not sure why people bash IV's storyline, they probably have short attention spans.

zeppelincheetah

San Andreas' story is epic. But it makes perfect sense and is well told.

Major Spoilers for San Andreas:

Think about CJ. Before the events of the game he left Los Santos for Liberty City, leaving his gang behind. During the first third of the game he's learning to be a grove street member again. Then after it's revealed that Ryder and Big Smoke were traitors, it was time to leave the hood to protect his sister (and also be kicked out of Los Santos by the LSPD). This time The whole middle part of San Andreas (Countryside-SF-LV), as ridiculously epic as it is, still serves the story because it's going back to the Liberty City CJ (he actually goes to Liberty City too, in a mission), forgetting about grove street. He finally comes back to his senses and finishes the business in LS.

IV's story was complete crap, with bad characters for the most part (The McReary's are an exception). "I'm looking for someone." "I need money" blah blah blah. A child could write a better story.

Edit: added a spoilers warning because apparently some people still haven't played San Andreas...

BlackNoise

R* has always struggled with storytelling IMO. It looks like GTA V will be different though. I didn't love MP3 or RDR's story, but they were much easier to follow and I still enjoyed them. I hated most of SA and IV's story.

V's approach to storytelling will possibly change the way we think about GTA stories. It seems like the story will be much more focused. We know it's a game about heists and everything else is either planning for those heists or other character specific missions that will probably make sense for the different characters.

It will be a much different game, because R* understands how ridiculous it is for one character to do everything. Just imagine if the only protagonist in GTA V was Michael, but the mission types stayed exactly the same. That's every GTA we've played up to this point. It was never about the personality of the character. In V, everybody will do the heist missions, but the other missions types will be done by the characters who should be doing those type of missions.

epicluca

Yeah SA's story was really bloated, and weird, and disjointed, but I think it's because of how big the map was and how seperated everything was from each other they found it hard to explain why CJ would leave the hood and go to the desert for no reason at all.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they're trying to avoid this time with the 3 characters who live on opposite sides of the map and with different personalities in GTA V. Now they don't have to worry about how they'll get you to randomly go to the desert part of the map, because Trevor lives out there. Also the character switching adds greater variety on a mission to mission basis as well. Now the missions won't be so claustrophobic with chasing you around a specific part of the map and staying there, like in past games.

With 3 characters you could be in Blaine County one second, then in the bay south of LS in the next without having to drive for 40 minutes.

Dick Justice

I can find the exact same flaws in both San Andreas' and IV's stories. They get bad when the main character gets too far out from where he would believably be. In San Andreas, the story was at its best in Los Santos, in IV, the story took a turn for the worst when Niko worked for the Alderney mob. After these points, nearly everything our characters did was irrelevant to the story, until they eventually got back on track later.

Dope_0110

OP you clearly didn't understand SA's storyline. After the Los Sastons part of the story he was exiled from the city by Tempenny. The reason why he did everything from that point on was to get money just so he can get by (Cataline, Truth).

Then while working on that money he realizes Ryder and Big Smoke are part of a cartel that brings drugs into the city and he wants to clear them from the picture (Woozie missions). At the same time he can establish a business there so they can have a nice life (Garage and Zero missions - optional)

Once the cartel is done with, Toreno contacts him and says ''do my sh*t for me, and when you do, I'll make your brother free''. And that's why he does all the Toreno missions. At the same time he expands into LV by entering casino business with Woozie (he's still got his mind on the money of course) and can optionally even rob a mob casino.

When he's done working for Toreno he gets angry at him for using him yet not freeing his brother. He just decides there's enough money in the business ventures and he can go back to LS and focus on his brother from there. That's when Toreno shows up with ''one last little thing'' and when Sweet shows of his full range of ''hood mentality'' that should have killed him just for my pleasure in the game.

Anyway, the story did suck, it did stretch out too much and let you meet strange characters and all that, and made itself crumble under it's own size. The only cohesive part is the LS part, the rest just blows stuff out of proportion, but that's what 3D era GTA did.. it was just.. arcade and blown out of proportion.

IV, with all it's subplots was, in my opinion, on the same level as SA. It also went all over the place with Niko meeting and working for everybody and making the main antagonist out of the biggest piece of pussy I've ever seen in a GTA character. Seriously, after that mission at the docks with Jacob I expected the game to make Bulgarov the antagonist since he was obviously after Niko. Yet he's barely mentioned for the rest of the game.

The game simply strayed away from any bigger goal and Niko just did stuff so he can get money, periodically asking people about his two war buddies, and they all said ''yeah man, working on it'' when in fact they knew nothing about them. It did give a nice sense of being in a new city, completely lost and trying to find someone when you barely know anyone and just trying to get by. And if that was what they wanted, they did a good job on confusing people with the storyline.

Sergi

This never fails. Its been said for years and people will feel how they feel. However if majority rules SA is the highest selling GTA and the 2nd highest rated and actually had and still has a very passionate fan base who for the most part fairly enjoyed and understood what SA was and how the storyline worked out. The same can be said with almost all the reviews. Some people just dont like SA or uses excuses such as the gangs aspect or the story not making sense. They are the minority. People love SA because it WAS the game at the peak of the generation and it accomplished so much.

IV was a very good game flaws and all but the hype for IV was based off SA. People were upset because they felt it was a step back. There were actually constant debate and arguemtn about IV and it's hype and the acclaim it got. There were alot and I mean alot of people all over not seeing IV as the game they thought and not what the reviews were. IV was a 9-9.5 easily but not a 10. The way R* showed advancements with IV was more subtle and showing how the series would translate to this gen and making tremendous stride in storytelling. What seperates IV from SA is R* did the absolute most they could with SA and it fit for the era of games that preceded it. IV wasn't R* best attempt this gen. I would argue RDR was much better and more deserving of it's acclaim then IV.

That brings it to V. This is R* last major title then generation the same as SA was. They know the PS3 and 360 in and out. This is R* self proclaimed best game. V seems to be more in line with SA then IV in all honesty. But it follows the same path as SA did. It fits perfectly into the era the current games are on. V won't be SA HD. If SA were released now it would be in a sense closer to SR then GTA IV. V is R* absolute best this gen and the most they can do with it.

People also have to remember the GTA games are branching games. You are playing the character and dictating their in game life. The sub plots dictate life. A movie is condensed because of time but just like books games are a investment. With games its just the most direct. GTA wouldnt feel like GTA if it didn't have all the subplots because then it would just be a game focused on telling 1 particular story and not the protag life directly. Mafia 2 for all its acclaim just felt like a mob game the same way a mob movie is. You were just witnessing a story. With GTA its like The Wire or Sopranos because you're actually investing and witnessing much more then just that condensed focused look.

GTAaLEX117

The main thing that annoyed me about SA was the fact that many missions were just filler. They didn't help to progress the storyline. These included most of the missions in San Fierro and Las Venturas, the whole garage thing and the robbing of the casino. The story just sidetracked too much. Some missions made no sense at all, especially the Truth ones.

Sergi

Can somebody give a actual coherent explanation on how they felt missions were filler or didn't make sense to the story. Last time I checked every actual storyline mission had something to do with the actual storyline of the game. The game wasn't just about Cj and Los Santos. Every place CJ went he went because of things that happened and happened for reasons. We know why Cj got dropped off in the boondocks. We know how and why Cj bought a garage. We know how and why he got mixed up with Torreno and why he did things like steal a jetpack. The storyline wasn't a mess and the only missions that were filler were missions that weren't man missions.

GTAaLEX117

Can somebody give a actual coherent explanation on how they felt missions were filler or didn't make sense to the story. Last time I checked every actual storyline mission had something to do with the actual storyline of the game. The game wasn't just about Cj and Los Santos. Every place CJ went he went because of things that happened and happened for reasons. We know why Cj got dropped off in the boondocks. We know how and why Cj bought a garage. We know how and why he got mixed up with Torreno and why he did things like steal a jetpack. The storyline wasn't a mess and the only missions that were filler were missions that weren't man missions.

What was the storyline actually about? CJ returning to the Grove. Then it got a little more complicated and turned into CJ returning to the Grove and saving his brother.

But what did setting up the garage and stealing money from the casino do to help progress this plot? Nothing, it was about making some money. Why did CJ even need that money?Also, why did CJ do errands for Truth again? Why did he steal a jetpack, and why did he steal the green goo? Those made no sense, and were just put there so the player is introduced to the jetpack.

Sean5

I'm sorry, but did you play SA storyline? CJ slowly moves out of the ghetto, and focuses less and less on freeing his brother as it goes along, his brother gets pissed as hell when he gets out of jail realising he's moved up in the world instead of being stuck in the ghetto.Would you rather another typical Pseudo-warmonger story like that of IV's?

zainzombie

But what did setting up the garage and stealing money from the casino do to help progress this plot? Nothing, it was about making some money. Why did CJ even need that money?Also, why did CJ do errands for Truth again? Why did he steal a jetpack, and why did he steal the green goo? Those made no sense, and were just put there so the player is introduced to the jetpack.

But what did setting up the garage and stealing money from the casino do to help progress this plot? Nothing, it was about making some money.

Why did CJ even need that money?

Ofcourse it was about making money, he was left with nothing, everything he had was taken away from him, the hood was done, Sweet was in jail and the 2 most trusted guys in the gang turned out to be A-holes.

From what I understand, just when Tenpenny drops him in the jungle he gets a call from Cesar that even his gang is being attacked and he and CJ's sister aren't safe there. He needed to repair a garage to make money to live a better life for himself, for Kendl, her husband and his brother whenever he comes back. He was trying to provide a better life for whatever was left of his family. For once he was trying to live a normal life without having to worry about hoods or gang wars.

Also, why did CJ do errands for Truth again? Why did he steal a jetpack, and why did he steal the green goo? Those made no sense, and were just put there so the player is introduced to the jetpack.

He was just doing a few favours to Truth as he was one of the guys who helped him repair his garage, plus CJ needed friends and no matter how idiotic Truth was, he was a better friend to him than his "homies".

IDK why some people want a GTA story to be linear.. the subplots and meeting crazy characters and doing their crazy missions which make zero sense but adds alot of craziness and blends with serious story missions perfectly well to create a well balanced game. To me, that is what makes GTA unique.

One of the reasons why I didnt love IV was it took itself WAAYYY too seriously and the characters trying to be funny or crazy were actually annoying. I like crazy (not too crazy like saints row ofcourse) subplots with stupid characters and the protags making fun of them the whole time only to realize the crazy guy was right all along (kinda like Truth and his conspiracy theories).

Staten

While IV's story is better than SA, I admire the way that a semi-serious story about a LS gangster ended up with green goo and casino heists. The problem was, it felt like they were rushing the story, and the other cities didn't seem as fleshed out or alive as LS.

DWTDevil

The story should be good. I always tell myself this because R* would not have the intention of three protagonists if they didn't want the plot to be as diverse and enthralling as can be. The length will be about the same as GTA IV I think, but with three sides to it, they can be more concise thus giving the story that feel where it is action-packed from start to finish. No silly errand-boy missions putting things through shop windows a la GTA IV.

There are reasons why Carl does what he does in SA. And you keep saying he should have spent more time 'finding' his brother? He knew where his brother was, he didn't have to find him. He was in jail. The game was about getting him out of jail. But the whole time you had Tenpenny breathing down your neck.

That's correct, but the whole thing about C.R.A.S.H. bringing Carl to the Badlands didn't make much sense if you think about all the missions you have to do later. Think about it: you can blow up a whole factory in the mission 'Yay-Ka-Boom-Boom'. Then in another mission, I believe the name of it was 'Interdiction', you have to protect the transport of a helicopter from the secret service. You can kill those guys with ease without any serious problems. Or in the mission 'Vertical Bird', you fly a fighter-jet for your first time in the game and you can destroy the fighter-jets that are flown by experienced military pilots, and then you can destory several communists boats. But god forbid that you go back to Los Santos in order to get CJ's brother out of jail. It just makes no sense.

You could possibly say that Tenpenny and the other members of C.R.A.S.H. are okay with Carl's actions, and the only thing they don't want is taking actions against Big Smoke and getting Sweet out of prison, but that doesn't make much sense either, does it?

QUOTE (Dope_0110 @ Sunday, Jul 28 2013, 10:22)

IV, with all it's subplots was, in my opinion, on the same level as SA. It also went all over the place with Niko meeting and working for everybody and making the main antagonist out of the biggest piece of pussy I've ever seen in a GTA character. Seriously, after that mission at the docks with Jacob I expected the game to make Bulgarov the antagonist since he was obviously after Niko. Yet he's barely mentioned for the rest of the game.

Niko was new to the city and he didn't know anyone, other than Roman. He met a lot of people throughout the game and did missions for many of them, which is not a bad thing by any means. The more people you know the higher the probability that you find the person(s) you seek for. And the same is the case with NB. All his friends died in the war, and there are two people who could have possibly done it; and one of them was in Liberty City. Basically, he tried everything just to find Florian to figure out why he betrayed his friends in the war if it was him. Though, it turns out later that it wasn't him, and the man Niko has to seek for is in europe; which is not a problem since UL Paper and Jon Gravelli find him for you, after doing several missions for them, and bring him to Liberty City. If you have played the two DLCs to GTA IV, then you know what happens with Bulgarin in TBoGT. IV's storyline was certainly not perfect, but it did many things better than San Andreas did, and it made more sense overall.

As for the story in GTAV, I'm much more optimistic about it than I was earlier this year. Multiple protagonists is not only a thing that can be seen in videogames, but also in movies. There is one main story with many missions, and quite a few of them can be played from more than one view. The gameplay trailer showed it perfectly. You can play as Michael, break into the building and take someone as hostage, then you can switch to Franklin and kill the enemies with a Sniper on another building. Not only makes it the missions more interesting, it also gives you several possibilities of how you play the story. The ending might be the same in the end, but the way you play the missions and with which character is up to you. The replay value is going to be amazing.

AuSsIeThUnDeR36

So...what you're saying is that the Housers suck at writing scripts? Get out of here, boy.Play San Andreas a few more times. So you understand the story better. CJ knew where Sweet was, in jail. So it wasn't all about 'Finding Sweet' it was all about getting rid of Big Smoke, Ryder, the Ballas and ultimately Tenpenny and Pulaski. It was always about 'reclaiming the streets' and getting the grove back together. CJ had to do all those missions in order to get everything back to normal.